Funny how conservative means getting the government involved in peoples sex lives and who can and cant get married. You would think conservatives would want the government out of the marriage business. Small government my ass.

Because you posted this earlier

It seems whereas you may think that homosexuality wrong you are coming short of wanting to discriminate against homosexual relationships.

I used that word as I was quoting N_R who used that word. You want to debate whether use of that word is appropriate while I find it pretty uninteresting. I'm not bound by it but it fits.

That list need not be exhaustive, as you point out there are other definitions, ones that include feeling superior and again that superiority seems more appropriate where it will manifest discriminatory practices. How do you think that fear distrust and hatred manifest?

You'll also notice that the wiki page is one in a series on discrimination if you expand policies on the right hand side of the screen it includes

Same-sex marriage
(laws and issues prohibiting)

So it seems while I'm not wedded to it it's not the kind of jump you are suggesting.

This doesn't seem really fair. Firstly, regardless of the number of people it affects, it is a fairly huge issue for the people it affects. Marriage is proclaimed to be, by opponents themselves, as this hugely important and transformative institution. As for number of people, there is something like ten million self identifying Americans. While not all of them will immediately get married, of course, the the acceptance it provides for the LGBT community at large is hugely influential. Things like, say, having LGBT youth in schools (which have atrocious suicide and graduation rates) have hope that they can go and have the love and commitment and acceptance in their futures that everyone else can get seems very important. These are numbers on the order of, say, issues like amnesty for illegal immigrants so if these numbers are too small to worry over, huge portions of politics are over issues too small to worry over.

He is using that word in order to malign the character of those who disagree with him, because he doesn't really want substantive debate on the issue. Why mince words? I'll say it.

I wouldnt be offended at all I would be able to answer saying that the affect it would have on my life is that I would live in a fairer society that discriminates against fewer people than it did before.

As to my heterosexual marriage gay people legally marrying will affect it not one bit. Mine and my wife's love for each other will not lessen because Gay people can marry nor will any of our rights be lessened.

Yes I do have children and I would like them to grow up in a society that doesn't needlessly discriminate, I want them to live in as fair and just a society as possible.

Seems you have a nice conspiracy breing in your head about how those evil athiests want to ruin society just for the sake of ruining it and that only people who agree with you are classed as sane, rational and half normal. I am sure this is a great tactic for allowing you to dismiss those that "are the opposition" but it makes you sound like the one that isnt sane, rational and half normal.

So if gays can marry those christian parents can no longer raise their children in a way they chose? Gays marrying doesn't stop christian parents from teaching their children about their beliefs that gay is wrong? What exactly will christians have to stop doing just because society as a whole stops discriminating against a section of the population for falling in love in a way that some don't agree with?

No one (up to this post) has bothered to actually show why legal gay marraige would be a bad thing for society and the argument against it seems to be well I don't think its right and so everyone should live according to my values.

You still havent answered the question of why having a fairer society is specifically anti christian rather than it just being divergent from what hardline christians want ( I use the word hardline suspecting it will be used to try and shift the argument but I think it is needed as I know many christians that have no problem with gay people being allowed to marry and live their lives how they choose)

This was not my intention, I was trying to get Doggg to clarify the statement that legalising gay marriage was anti-christian as I don't think it is. The main opposition to gay marriage seems to be religiously motivated and thus it can make it look like its against religion when in reality people support gay marriage as they think gay people should have the same rights as hetero people not because they want to promote something simply because christians don't like it (that was the stawman I was trying to expose, apologies if my inexperience at wording ideas on a forum post caused me to make it look like I was trying to erect a strawman of my own).

I would be interested to know what you think the best reasons are to oppose gay marraige. It may even be that you don't oppose it but rather dont support it (in that you seem to say that you dont personally like the idea of gay marraige but you wont stand in the way of those that want it) which I would think requires much less reasons though I am still unconvinced there is any that are strong enough to deny rights to a subset of the population based on who they fall in love with (as I have pointed out would you think any of the reasons would be strong enough to deny interacial marraige for example as that seems to be very analogous)

Because they support same sex marraige not to deny those with conservative values any rights but to stop the denial of rights that is happening to some people. I don't support gay marriage because I don't like conservative values (I suspect my level of liberalism or conservativeness varies quite a bit depending on any given issue so I dont identify as either) I am not trying to stop people having conservative values or thinking in a conservative way so there is no grounds to classify me as bigoted towards conservative values. However to deliberately want to treat a section of the population as second class citizens that are not as worthy as everyone else is much easier to see as bigoted in that you are against them purely because of who/what they are. If this was black marriage people have no trouble calling the opponents racist bigots for example.

I think I answered this section above too?

I would still be interested to know why you think allowing two people in love to marry who they love is not the best way. Are your reasons purely religious (e.g. the bible says its wrong thus I think it is wrong) or do you think there is a genuine reason to suspect society would be worse off if we treat everyone equally? Do you think there will be a rise in crime for example? or a rise in divorce rates for hetero marraiges? (these are obviously just examples i have pulled off the top of my head).

I would also like to clarify that I am not trying in any way to call you a bigot or intolerant I am genuinely interested in your reasoning and why you dont think equality is appropriate here (I assume you support equality in other areas such as gender and race)

No I'm using that bigoted to describe practices that are discriminatory. I'm also perfectly happy discussing the actual issues as you'll have noticed above it was N_R that didn't want to get into the reasons not me.

I'm also perfectly happy with maligning the character of those people who will discriminate against others based on race gender sexual orientation or other non morally relevant characteristics.

Just check out the studies from <insert organisation with the word 'Family' in it somewhere>.


As for the 'bigot' issue, I do understand that it can be thrown around a bit liberally when perhaps 'might be a bigot' could be more accurate.
But more seriously, there are an awful lot of people that are fighting against equality who are insufferable bigots, and many common 'arguments' against SSM stem from bigotry. Some possibly innocent bystanders might be incorrectly splashed with the term because they stand too close to real bigots.

But I have noticed that bigots don't really like being called bigots, which is reason enough to keep calling them that. It seems to be a powerful enough label that the undecided's might examine their position more closely than they would otherwise.

I kinda agree with that and I am not surprised my claim that only bigots oppose same sex marriage tautological has come under fire.

But if people wish to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation I am happy to call them bigots. If they would deny rights to homosexuals that they extend to heterosexuals that is bigotry.

I also think what's being lost here is that this order forbids discriminatory practices in employment, opposition to this may be a clearer indication of bigotry than opposition to same sex marriage.

It may not also given there will be a libertarian element that while not homophobic would limit the role the state plays in saying who can hire who

Fancy words from someone who declared gay-marriage to be anti-Christian. Last time I checked there are plenty of Christians who support gay marriage and who happen to think respecting gay marriage is the Christian thing to do.

You should really step down from the pedestal.

these are rules about the federal government's own hiring practices so the libertarian argument is at least a lot less clear. I would say it was entirely irrelevant except it does involve federal contractors rather than federal employees

Yeah I'm not prepared to comment particularly strongly on the detail because i'm not familiar with the domain in which this applies. I do know that Aaron has claimed to be pretty libertarian on certain issues previously and I think it's possible to oppose equality legislation on libertarian grounds without being a bigot as it's absent the prejudice from the wiki definition above.

The classic libertarian conondrum: Nobody is allowed to put you in a concentration camp, but similarly nobody is obliged to help you when you are.

There's bits of libertarianism I think are reasonable it's the bat**** bits that get me.

I think that's where Christians disagree. I had a long talk with some Christians yesterday about this debate, to see where they stood. It was actually the first time anyone had ever brought up the issue, because unlike what a lot of people think, not all Christians have made it their goal to make people do what they feel is right, and are constantly discussing how to stop the evils of gay marriage. There are lots of things that I don't agree with, but it doesn't mean that I'm going to force anyone to do what I believe is right, and even though I don't think it's beneficial in the long-run, I'm not about to start a crusade. Some Christians feel the need to impose their will, but I do not. I don't discriminate against my common law friends, why would I discriminate against gay people? That's not to say I believe each action has the same consequences, but ultimately, it's not my job to categorize who I believe is better or worse.

I can't speak for Hitchens, he may be downright downplaying the issue condescendingly. I personally understand that those who it affects is an important issue, all I meant that in retrospect, those people are not that many, at least as is presented. The issue is more than just the few it affects, it's on principle too, I get that, but in reality we are speaking of like a couple of million people. What I do think is that this is part of a greater trend, a shift in culture as it were, where this issue is actually coming from.

In this case, you've kind of made my point for me. N_R's usage of the word was that people try to frame things in a certain way so that they can call people bigoted. And that's precisely what you're doing. He never used the word "bigot" (as far as I saw) to actually mean the thing that you're saying in some affirmative manner. Here was his first usage:

...

It manifests in fear, distrust, and hatred. It's not that complicated.

The problem with the type of reasoning you're trying to apply is that it basically allows you to say that anytime someone does something that you disagree with, it's because they're secretly bigoted. Why? Because it manifested itself in some sort of policy or decision that is counter to what you want to see. It doesn't really work.

I don't think that part of the wikipedia page means what you think it means. At all.

You apparently like this quote in all of its inaccuracy. It's true that libertarianism as a political philosophy doesn't try to compel people to goodness. But neither does democracy. Or virtually any other political philosophy. At best, other political philosophies demand conformity (which may or may not be "good").

Treating a political philosophy as if that's also meant to be interpreted as a personal philosophy is beyond ridiculous.

This reads as "I want to call them bigots because I want to call them bigots." It's at least a more honest presentation than trying to argue that wikipedia supports your usage of the word.

Sometimes it's just the use of language that causes an issue for both sides, I'm not accusing you of purposely committing this fallacy, but I do think you're looking at it in a certain light that makes the opposition seem hateful.


I think the reasons are always the same, they don't change based on your level of disapproval. It's also not about denying rights, I think this is where things get blurry for everyone. It's not about looking at gay people with hatred and wanting to "deny them", it's not even about "gay" people. People are people. We believe the actions are A) Wrong, based on an absolute immorality, and B) Not beneficial for society. It's because of A and B that we work backwards and say, it would be better for people of the same sex not to marry. It's not that we look at gay people and say, "we don't like them, how can we keep them down?"

You're making the mistake of thinking that those who do not support gay marriage simply want to "deny" a group of people. That is the outcome, not the source. The issue has less to do with those who do it than with the actions. It's no different than you saying you don't want to "stop people from having conservative values", but that's exactly what you are doing. You are actively restraining conservative values, even if it's not your aim, simply by supporting liberal values. This is the main point of contention, I believe, and it's the same for both sides.

I think the term equality is a bit of a misnomer for this discussion. Many things have regulations on them, especially things involving gender. Men and woman are not equal in many ways, and they shouldn't be treated equal. That's not a pejorative definition, it's a biological one.

My objections are mostly moral, yes. I believe in an absolute morality where same sex relationships are wrong. I also believe that sexual relationships outside of marriage are wrong. Do you think I discriminate against "fornicators" and don't want to treat them as "equal"? It has less to do with the people who do it, but with the action.

It's as easy as understanding that where I believe that conservative values are best, a society which begins to replace those values with opposing ones, will naturally be worse. If we believe in God, naturally we want to keep God in the constitution, prayers in school, marriage treated with respect and divorce not easily accessible, etc. A society which promotes things that are opposite to Christian moral values, will obviously be worse through the perspective of a Christian. It is easy to say Christians want to discriminate against certain people, but that is not the case for everyone, and I don't see how it's different than those who don't share the Christian values. We simply disagree on what's right and wrong, and what's best. I'm not actively pursuing a specific group, whatever that may mean, I simply disagree with certain actions, but it is not politically correct anymore for someone to say they disagree and think it's wrong, and that's the equivalent of what is being said about Christians, imo.

Tactically, this works well right up to the point that it doesn't work. Then this type of divisive positioning tends to attract an equally powerful backlash against those using the characterization. Such are the dangers of trying to bank on human irrationalities.

(See for example, "playing the race card.")

You are being obtuse. You are also holding me to a definition you weren't holding yourself to while implying I was being bigoted, this makes your position here hypocritical.

It's not about what I want to see it's where prejudice results in unequal treatment which is more consistent with the wiki definition than your vague reference to feeling superior.

That the page references a series on discrimination puts it in the ball park

Read it again.

I reckon my definition of prejudice + discrimination a closer match to the wiki definition than yours above and you have the audacity to refer to my presentation as dishonest.

You should really drop the us verse them mentality. There are Christians who support gay marriage. In the US id guess most who support gay marriage, are Christian.